Szelethus accepted this revision.
Szelethus added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
AFAIK `constexpr` arrays can be `std::sort`-ed, but it probably isn't worth the
effort, I tried it myself when I was working with non-checker configs, and it's
a big hassle for ultimately very little gain.
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/diagnostics/explicit-suppression.cpp:22
#ifndef SUPPRESSED
- // expected-warning@../Inputs/system-header-simulator-cxx.h:670 {{Called C++
object pointer is null}}
+ // expected-warning@../Inputs/system-header-simulator-cxx.h:677 {{Called C++
object pointer is null}}
#endif
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> Szelethus wrote:
> > Can't we just change this to `// expected-warning{{Called C++ object
> > pointer is null}}`? This file is so tiny, I think it wouldn't cause much
> > confusion, and reduces unnecessary maintenance work.
> I don't think it'll work. The warning is not on this line, it is in
> `system-header-simulator-cxx.h`, so we need to specify it somehow, and it'll
> appear only in this test, not in other tests that include that header, so we
> can't put it directly into the header.
Ah, okay.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D55307/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D55307
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
